MUHAMMAD YOUNIS Versus FAYYAS HAMID

ORDER.

The facts giving rise to this petition are that Mst. Ikram Jan, widow of Malik Muhammad Latif respondent filed an ejectment petition against Muhammad Younis Khan petitioner from a house on the ground of default. She alleged that the petitioner was occupying her house as a tenant through a rent deed executed between the parties on a monthly rent of Rs.300. She had filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner which was decided through a compromise dated 21‑9‑1981, before Mr. Khalil Ahmad Anwar, learned Rent Controller, Lahore wherein he admitted that he would vacate the house in dispute whenever she would require it. She alleged that after the said compromise the petitioner had never paid/tendered rent to her.

2.The petitioner contested the petition and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He stated that the compromise dated 21‑9‑1981 was the result of force and coercion and that he had paid Rs.17,000 as advance rent to Tariq Mahmood son of Mst. Ikram Jan. The learned Rent Controller framed an issue about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and after recording evidence came to conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and vide order dated 17‑5‑1987 ordered ejectment of the petitioner. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 9‑6‑1988.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there has been a misreading of the evidence and an independent inquiry should have been made with regard to the alleged default even after the finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties.

4.The petitioner's contention is that he was a tenant of Tariq Aziz son of the respondent No.l and not of respondent No.3 but he stands belied by Tariq Aziz who appeared as AW.1 and categorically stated that the petitioner was a tenant under his mother and that he had not received any rent from the petitioner and that it was his mother who used to receive the same. The petitioner failed to lead any convincing evidence to the contrary. He also failed to explain as A to why he had entered into compromise with respondent No.3 in the Court of Mr. Khalil Ahmad Anwar learned Rent Controller, Lahore in the earlier ejectment petition filed against him by respondent No.3.

5.In the above circumstances, it was rightly held by the Courts below that the petitioner was a tenant under Mst. Ikram Jan respondent and that the relationship of landlady and tenant existed between them. Since the petitioner had himself not alleged to have made any payment to her there was no need of making any inquiry into the alleged default against him. No misreading of evidence or violation of any law appears in the impugned orders. In consequence, the petition fails and is dismissed in limine.

M. Z. S. /M‑1019/L Petition dismissed.